A meta‐analytic test of the differential pathways linking ethical leadership to normative conduct
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary We test how ethical leadership influences normatively (in)appropriate work behavior through distinct mediating pathways, including one's exchange relationship with the leader, ethical culture, and identification with the organization. Our study also controls for transformational leadership as a predictor and trust in leader as a nonhypothesized alternative mechanism. We test our hypotheses using meta‐analytic structural equation modeling based on our meta‐analysis of 301 independent samples ( N = 103,354) and relevant meta‐analytic correlations reported in previous research. Supporting our prediction, we found that leader–member exchange, which represents social exchange theory, was the most potent mechanism that accounts for the positive relationship between ethical leadership and task performance. In contrast, ethical culture, which assesses a social learning mechanism, is the strongest predictor of counterproductive behavior. In addition, all three hypothesized mediators each contribute to understanding the positive relationship between ethical leadership and organizational citizenship behavior, although the indirect effect via organizational identification was the weakest. The findings hold after controlling for job satisfaction as another mediator parallel to the theoretical ones. Our results contribute to a precise theory about ethical leadership by differentiating the processes through which it affects employee behavior.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".